-
Technology in Cancer Research &... 2023Review efficacy and safety of minimally-invasive treatments for Low Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in patients affected by Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH). We performed... (Review)
Review
Review efficacy and safety of minimally-invasive treatments for Low Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in patients affected by Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH). We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1993 to 2022 leveraging original research articles, reviews, and case-studies published in peer-reviewed journals and stored in public repositories. Prostate artery embolization (PAE), transurethral needle ablation (TUNA), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT), high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), laser treatments and Cryoablation are valid and safe alternatives to the gold standard (surgery) in the treatment of LUTS in patients affected by BPH, with fewer undesired effects being reported.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Cryosurgery; Embolization, Therapeutic; Prostate; Pelvis; Treatment Outcome; Transurethral Resection of Prostate
PubMed: 36794408
DOI: 10.1177/15330338231155000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Management of rotator cuff disease may include use of electrotherapy modalities (also known as electrophysical agents), which aim to reduce pain and improve function via... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of rotator cuff disease may include use of electrotherapy modalities (also known as electrophysical agents), which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, or thermal) into the body. Examples include therapeutic ultrasound, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). These modalities are usually delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one of a series of reviews that form an update of the Cochrane review, 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities for the treatment of people with rotator cuff disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2015), Ovid EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, January 1937 to March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP clinical trials registries up to March 2015, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials, to identify potentially relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, including adults with rotator cuff disease (e.g. subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, calcific tendinitis), and comparing any electrotherapy modality with placebo, no intervention, a different electrotherapy modality or any other intervention (e.g. glucocorticoid injection). Trials investigating whether electrotherapy modalities were more effective than placebo or no treatment, or were an effective addition to another physical therapy intervention (e.g. manual therapy or exercise) were the main comparisons of interest. Main outcomes of interest were overall pain, function, pain on motion, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and the number of participants experiencing adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 trials (2388 participants). Most trials (n = 43) included participants with rotator cuff disease without calcification (four trials included people with calcific tendinitis). Sixteen (34%) trials investigated the effect of an electrotherapy modality delivered in isolation. Only 23% were rated at low risk of allocation bias, and 49% were rated at low risk of both performance and detection bias (for self-reported outcomes). The trials were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention and comparator, so none of the data could be combined in a meta-analysis.In one trial (61 participants; low quality evidence), pulsed therapeutic ultrasound (three to five times a week for six weeks) was compared with placebo (inactive ultrasound therapy) for calcific tendinitis. At six weeks, the mean reduction in overall pain with placebo was -6.3 points on a 52-point scale, and -14.9 points with ultrasound (MD -8.60 points, 95% CI -13.48 to -3.72 points; absolute risk difference 17%, 7% to 26% more). Mean improvement in function with placebo was 3.7 points on a 100-point scale, and 17.8 points with ultrasound (mean difference (MD) 14.10 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.39 to 22.81 points; absolute risk difference 14%, 5% to 23% more). Ninety-one per cent (29/32) of participants reported treatment success with ultrasound compared with 52% (15/29) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.53; absolute risk difference 39%, 18% to 60% more). Mean improvement in quality of life with placebo was 0.40 points on a 10-point scale, and 2.60 points with ultrasound (MD 2.20 points, 95% CI 0.91 points to 3.49 points; absolute risk difference 22%, 9% to 35% more). Between-group differences were not important at nine months. No participant reported adverse events.Therapeutic ultrasound produced no clinically important additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions (eight clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences in patient-important outcomes between ultrasound and other active interventions (manual therapy, acupuncture, glucocorticoid injection, glucocorticoid injection plus oral tolmetin sodium, or exercise) because the quality of evidence is very low. Two placebo-controlled trials reported results favouring LLLT up to three weeks (low quality evidence), however combining LLLT with other physical therapy interventions produced few additional benefits (10 clinically heterogeneous trials, low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is more or less effective than glucocorticoid injection with respect to pain, function, global treatment success and active range of motion because of the very low quality evidence from a single trial. In other single, small trials, no clinically important benefits of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), microcurrent electrical stimulation (MENS), acetic acid iontophoresis and microwave diathermy were observed (low or very low quality evidence).No adverse events of therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT, TENS or microwave diathermy were reported by any participants. Adverse events were not measured in any trials investigating the effects of PEMF, MENS or acetic acid iontophoresis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, therapeutic ultrasound may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with calcific tendinitis, and LLLT may have short-term benefits over placebo in people with rotator cuff disease. Further high quality placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. In contrast, based on low quality evidence, PEMF may not provide clinically relevant benefits over placebo, and therapeutic ultrasound, LLLT and PEMF may not provide additional benefits when combined with other physical therapy interventions. We are uncertain whether TENS is superior to placebo, and whether any electrotherapy modality provides benefits over other active interventions (e.g. glucocorticoid injection) because of the very low quality of the evidence. Practitioners should communicate the uncertainty of these effects and consider other approaches or combinations of treatment. Further trials of electrotherapy modalities for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Adult; Diathermy; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Magnetic Field Therapy; Middle Aged; Muscular Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotator Cuff; Shoulder Pain; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 27283591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012225 -
European Urology Jun 2023Minimally invasive surgical therapies for male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were developed to be safer and more tolerable than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Minimally invasive surgical therapies for male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were developed to be safer and more tolerable than standard ablative techniques. These treatments have not been compared with each other in a randomised fashion, and for some treatments, there are no trials against a reference technique.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature for randomised controlled trials was performed. Trials meeting the selection criteria were assessed for the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Treatments were compared, using a network meta-analysis, in terms of outcomes including symptom score, quality of life, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and scales from the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The search identified 63 trials. Symptoms and quality of life for PAE, PUL, and WVTT appeared similar to those for TURP, whereas TURP was found to have the most clinically significant improvement in flow rate. TUMT was less efficacious than TURP but provided similar results on quality of life. Comparisons of ejaculatory function favoured WVTT and PUL compared with TURP. The relative efficacy of iTIND was less clear because of the risk of bias in the respective trial.
CONCLUSIONS
PAE, PUL, and WVTT appear favourable from a risk-benefit perspective despite probably having less efficacy than TURP for objective outcomes. These findings warrant confirmation through long-term randomised controlled trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY
This paper has summarised the evidence from 63 clinical trials on minimally invasive surgical therapies for men with symptoms of an enlarged prostate, including water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), temporary implantable nitinol device, and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). Improvement in symptoms for each of PAE, PUL, TUMT, and WVTT in short-term follow-up was similar to that for the standard surgical treatment, although standard surgery appeared to provide the greatest increase in urine flow. Men who had WVTT or PUL were less likely to have problems with sexual function than those who had standard surgery.
Topics: Humans; Male; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Quality of Life; Network Meta-Analysis; Steam; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36964042
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.02.028 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Aug 2018To review scientific literature studying the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysical modalities for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
OBJECTIVE
To review scientific literature studying the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysical modalities for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential eligible studies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results of the included studies (2 reviews and 22 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). For physical therapy, moderate evidence was found for myofascial massage therapy versus ischemic compression on latent, or active, trigger points or low-level laser therapy in the short term. For several electrophysical modalities, moderate evidence was found in the short term (ultrasound vs placebo, ultrasound as single intervention vs other nonsurgical interventions, ultrasound vs corticosteroid injection plus a neutral wrist splint, local microwave hyperthermia vs placebo, iontophoresis vs phonophoresis, pulsed radiofrequency added to wrist splint, continuous vs pulsed vs placebo shortwave diathermy, and interferential current vs transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation vs a night-only wrist splint). In the midterm, moderate evidence was found in favor of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) added to a neutral wrist splint, in favor of ESWT versus ultrasound, or cryo-ultrasound, and in favor of ultrasound versus placebo. For all other interventions studied, only limited, conflicting, or no evidence was found. No RCTs investigating the long-term effects of physical therapy and electrophysical modalities were found. Because of heterogeneity in the treatment parameters used in the included RCTs, optimal treatment parameters could not be identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence was found for several physical therapy and electrophysical modalities for CTS in the short term and midterm. Future studies should concentrate on long-term effects and which treatment parameters of physical therapy and electrophysical modalities are most effective for CTS.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28942118
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.
METHODS
We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Network Meta-Analysis; Progestins; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35638592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.
Topics: Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Transurethral Resection of Prostate
PubMed: 34693990
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013656.pub2 -
Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy :... Oct 2017To systematically analyse the literature on the use of the microwave-based device for subdermal thermolysis of the axilla and its efficacy for the treatment of axillary... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically analyse the literature on the use of the microwave-based device for subdermal thermolysis of the axilla and its efficacy for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases on 2 June 2016. The inclusion criteria including: (1) studies with human subjects, (2) full-text articles published in English, (3) a microwave-based device used to treat axillary hyperhidrosis and (4) trials that precisely evaluated axillary hyperhidrosis. Exclusion criteria were the following: (1) studies that did not fit the inclusion criteria mentioned above and (2) case reports and reviews.
RESULTS
We reviewed five clinical trials and 189 patients, all of which were published between 2012 and 2016. There was one randomized controlled trial, one retrospective study and the remainder were prospective studies. Although all of the studies were conducted with a small sample size, the results indicated that microwave-based device treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis had long-term efficacy with mild adverse effects. In addition, most patients were satisfied with the outcomes in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Microwave-based device treatment may be an effective alternative treatment for axillary hyperhidrosis. However, further investigation is necessary to determine its long-term efficacy and safety.
Topics: Axilla; Humans; Hyperhidrosis; Microwaves; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28281850
DOI: 10.1080/14764172.2017.1303168 -
Anticancer Research Jul 2023Pulmonary metastases are the second most common site of metastasis in colorectal cancer after the liver, and microwave ablation (MWA) for its treatment has grown in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Pulmonary metastases are the second most common site of metastasis in colorectal cancer after the liver, and microwave ablation (MWA) for its treatment has grown in popularity in patients who are not suitable for pulmonary metastatectomy. However, its long-term efficacy remains unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in July 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Studies adopting MWA for colorectal cancer pulmonary metastases were included.
RESULTS
A total of 488 lesions were ablated in 230 patients across eight studies. The median duration of ablation was 10 minutes. The mean length of stay in hospital was 2.3 days. Complications included pneumothorax in 128 (52%) patients; pneumonia, which occurred in 4 (1.7%) patients, and pulmonary haemorrhage in 23 (10.0%) patients. Complete remission was achieved in 85 (37.0%) patients, local control was achieved in 103 (44.8%) patients, and residual or progressive disease remained in 85 (37.0%). Survival post ablation at 1 year was 89.2% and at 3 years was 40.3%. Post-ablation disease-free survival was 43.2% at 3 years.
CONCLUSION
MWA is an alternative treatment for pulmonary metastases of colorectal cancer. It has competitive theoretical properties and local recurrence rate compared to radiofrequency ablation.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Microwaves; Catheter Ablation; Radiofrequency Ablation; Lung Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms
PubMed: 37351979
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16461 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Aug 2023Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Use of image guided thermal ablation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for inoperable early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Use of image guided thermal ablation (IGTA; including microwave ablation [MWA] and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) has increased in NSCLC, however there are no studies comparing all three.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of IGTA (including MWA and RFA) and SBRT for the treatment of NSCLC.
METHODS
Published literature databases were systematically searched for studies assessing MWA, RFA, or SBRT. Local tumor progression (LTP), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed with single-arm pooled analyses and meta-regressions in NSCLC patients and a stage IA subgroup. Study quality was assessed with a modified methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool.
RESULTS
Forty IGTA study-arms (2,691 patients) and 215 SBRT study-arms (54,789 patients) were identified. LTP was lowest after SBRT at one and two years in single-arm pooled analyses (4% and 9% vs. 11% and 18%) and at one year in meta-regressions when compared to IGTA (OR = 0.2, 95%CI = 0.07-0.63). MWA patients had the highest DFS of all treatments in single-arm pooled analyses. In meta-regressions at two and three-years, DFS was significantly lower for RFA compared to MWA (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.12-0.58; OR = 0.33, 95%CI = 0.16-0.66, respectively). OS was similar across modalities, timepoints, and analyses. Older age, male patients, larger tumors, retrospective studies, and non-Asian study region were also predictors of worse clinical outcomes. In high-quality studies (MINORS score ≥ 7), MWA patients had better clinical outcomes than the overall analysis. Stage IA MWA patients had lower LTP, higher OS, and generally lower DFS, compared to the main analysis of all NSCLC patients.
CONCLUSIONS
NSCLC patients had comparable outcomes after SBRT and MWA, which were better than those with RFA.
Topics: Humans; Male; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Radiosurgery; Lung Neoplasms; Catheter Ablation; Liver Neoplasms
PubMed: 37321074
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107259 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Jul 2023Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative to whole-gland treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer. Ten different FT modalities have been described in literature.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative to whole-gland treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer. Ten different FT modalities have been described in literature. However, FT is not yet recommended by the International Guidelines, due to the lack of robust data on Oncological Outcomes. The objective of our Narrative Review is to evaluate the oncological profile of the available FT modalities and to offer a comprehensive overview of the definitions of Cancer Control for FT.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Literature search was performed on 21 February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole gland-treatments were excluded. All articles reporting oncological outcomes were included.
RESULTS
One-hundred-twenty-four studies, reporting data on more than 8000 patients treated with FT, were included. Overall, 40 papers were on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), 24 on Focal Cryotherapy, 13 on Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation (FLA), 8 on Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT), 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation (bRFA), 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and 9 comparative papers. Overall, the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) rate ranged from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 67.5% (HIFU); the Salvage treatment rate ranged from 1% (IRE) to 54% (HIFU) considering re-treatment with FT and from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 66.7% considering standard Radical Treatments. There is no univocal definition of Cancer Control, however the "Phoenix criteria" for BCR were the most commonly used.
CONCLUSIONS
FT is a promising alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer in terms of Oncological Outcomes, however there is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of cancer control, the reporting of oncological outcomes and a lack of high-quality clinical trials. Solid comparative studies with standard treatments and an unambiguous consensus on how to describe Cancer Control in the field of Focal Therapy are needed.
PubMed: 37507479
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00699-7